07-18-2005 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

: Ex�BrT G, ��r�� July 13, 2005 � JUL �. �: 2005 CITY OF (�RONO City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Attn: Mike Gaffron Re: Proposed Narrows Saloon expansion. • Dear Mr. Gaffron, Due to many concerns I am advocating no outdoor dining be allowed at the remodeled Narrows Saloon. But it appears that the planning commissioners are contemplating some sort of outdoor dining on the north side of the Uuilding. If such dining is allowed i feel the noise problem needs to be addressed thoroughly. Here are some points of concern: l. The height of the wall surrounding the outdoor dining area at 5'- 6" is not tall enough to stop noise from traveling into the neighborhood to the north. Due to the slope of the parking lot and the higher elevation of the neighborhood the wall needs to be much higher. 2. If the wall is made higher than 6' then the outdoor dining area would Ue counted as structural coverage of the lot,bringing the total coverage to at least 45% when 15%o is allowed, requiring the granting of a variance. ' 3. The folding doors facing the dining area will let a significant amount of noise out into the dining area and subsequently tlle neighborhood to the north. You can draw a line straight from the live nlusic stage to the nearest folding door with no wall in between to stop noise. Pool tables situated in front of this door will also contribute to the overall noise level. For the reasons stated above it appears that the revised plan is very poorly conceived in terms of noise abatement. At the last planning commission meeting, noise abatement was the commissioners' biggest concern and it w1s suggested that the wall surrounding the outdoor dining area needed to be suUstantial enough to block noise from carrying into the surrounding neighborhood. Yet by increasing the height the applicant will need a variance. It seems the comnlissioners' request is at odds with the Orono zoning codes. Increasing the height of the outdoor wall would do a lot to reduce noise carry over but at the same time this would require a variance, and.I fail Co see how the applicants can claim a hardship. So if the applicant is allowed to have ouldoor dining I would suggest that the only rational solution is to curtail all outside �1CtilVlty flt 1ri OaPly IlOL1P SL1C11 1S 9:30 011l Of respect for the neighbors. I would also suggest that the planning coininission l�y out precisely how any CUP would Ue enforced and monitored. The last CUP was not enforced, the owner w1s out of compliance, and inslead of being punished tiley are in all likelihood Ueing rewarded with a grint of an expanded CUP.